Wut? There were states in the Bible Belt which refused to air that episode.
Internal Culture War?
- Thread starter HotRod
- Start date
- Status
Well I had no idea, I would have thought that the allegory would have made things ok?
As for the poster who compared same sex relationship treatment in nu-Trek to that of Riker’s polyamory, they were almost as badly written too. Look:
I was looking for the bath tub shaving scene as an example, but could not find that particular clip. This clip will do though.
Last edited:
No. Allegory does not prevent offense.
Strangely they were able to see through Star Trek's clever ruse...Well I had no idea, I would have thought that the allegory would have made things ok?
I'm rather sad to see that there's so much division. Sadly it doesn't seem to be enough to just say one likes Trek and have it be the end of it. Now it seems there are sides. I'm just a Trek fan.
As to the writing, I'll say this. I prefer allegories. For decades, even generations, it meant that writers had to get creative about how to broach cultural issues. We see this dating back to Jules Verne or even Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and science fiction was the perfect vehicle to explore different kinds of issues. It led to writers being creative and subtle. In Trek, it also led to some of the most memorable episodes, ie TOS's Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, and TNG's Inner Light. Both enduring classics of their particular era. The one thing I've noticed about modern Trek is that the allegories seem to have largely disappeared, the writing more blunt. In certain contexts, this can have its place, but I think it's led to less creativity in the way stories are written in general.
As to the writing, I'll say this. I prefer allegories. For decades, even generations, it meant that writers had to get creative about how to broach cultural issues. We see this dating back to Jules Verne or even Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and science fiction was the perfect vehicle to explore different kinds of issues. It led to writers being creative and subtle. In Trek, it also led to some of the most memorable episodes, ie TOS's Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, and TNG's Inner Light. Both enduring classics of their particular era. The one thing I've noticed about modern Trek is that the allegories seem to have largely disappeared, the writing more blunt. In certain contexts, this can have its place, but I think it's led to less creativity in the way stories are written in general.
Allegory today would mean tackling Donald Trump. No offense to Quark, but I don't want Star Trek to be all about the Ferengi 24/7.
Although Picard Season 1, with its ban on AI, has become more relevant now. Plus the Zhat'Vash killing off Dahj's black boyfriend. And how the newswoman who interviewed Picard was stand-in for cable news "interviewing" someone of the opposite party.
Last edited:
i see Star Trek as this thing that has some good ideas, some bad ideas, and a lot of explosions in-between. It is not perfect, and that applies to both its creators and its fans, but it does provide some common ground for a lot of people, even if many take different things from it. Despite its depictions of a future society, it will always be a reflection of the current time each iteration of Trek was made in.
But at what point in time does allegory lose its punch? Let that Be Your Last Battlefield is about as subtle as a train wreck when it comes to its allegory. TNG was even worse when it wasn't allegorical and bluntly looked down on addicted individuals, like a DARE program advertisement.
With due respect to fellow Trek fans, I've see division for years. I was mocked for liking TOS and not TNG. I like ST 09 and was roundly derided, never mind DSC. I enjoy good allegories but I think that right now this requires a blunt telling to people because people don't get it.
Well, if well-written, I think they can stand the stand the test of time fairly well, just like any other literature classic.
This isn't literature.
And more to my point what allegories do people think Trek did well that stand the test of time?
And, how many allegories do people read in classic literature and go "Oh, I get that!" Is Gulliver's Travels well understood by today's audiences? "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland?"
I mean, I studied "The Scarlet Letter" and "Lord of the Flies" but didn't learn until college the allegorical meaning behind it.
Allegory can be useful, but sometimes just straight up telling the story and making people uncomfortable is more important than couching it in safe language.
Last edited:
I was trying to make a point that sci-fi in general has used allegory for as long as sci-fi has been around, and that if Star Trek has allegory, that it can stand the test of time as well as any. And I tend to feel it has more of a chance of becoming timeless rather than something that is more blunt. And as I've said, bluntness has its place, but it doesn't always lead to better stories.
That is fair, though I would still ask the question of what Trek allegories do people readily recall as being impactful?
More importantly, I don't want it to stand the test of time. I don't get this standard of making something timeless; make something that tells the story you want today, in the hear and now, to today's audience. If I write to the future then I won't write to anyone.
I will say I do think allegory still serves a important function in Star Trek in away that is unique to itself that no other show has to face and that is the part of Earth becoming a utopia and a paradise. Even with black characters for example it's not like you can have them face racism in the way they would in a show set in modern times or the 50's or 60's.
The idea you can't have LGBTQ or diversity etc is silly but at the same time it's kind of a issue in that they also have to fit into the Trek mold of a positive future or else Trek just becomes another space opera where as it's optimism and even fantasy of a perfect world without crime and bigotry and poverty etc is part of the charm of Trek.
I believe SNW has done a fairly good job of this. Una dealing with bigotry sprung from the eugenics war. The Klingon ambassador episode dealing with war and war crimes. Involves both aliens but a fictional war. Pike is a commentary on positive masculinity without the words positive or toxic masculinity never even being brought up in words.
The idea you can't have LGBTQ or diversity etc is silly but at the same time it's kind of a issue in that they also have to fit into the Trek mold of a positive future or else Trek just becomes another space opera where as it's optimism and even fantasy of a perfect world without crime and bigotry and poverty etc is part of the charm of Trek.
I believe SNW has done a fairly good job of this. Una dealing with bigotry sprung from the eugenics war. The Klingon ambassador episode dealing with war and war crimes. Involves both aliens but a fictional war. Pike is a commentary on positive masculinity without the words positive or toxic masculinity never even being brought up in words.
Of course it is.
It's just not the only tool in the box, and less allegory doesn't make Trek lesser, or decrease the division in the fan base.
Last edited:
Spock's journey from denying his human half in TMP to finally accepting it by TUC resonated with me at a time when direct representation was neither present or likely to be present. Likewise, his alienation from both Vulcan and humans.
That being said, hiding LGBTQ+ behind analogy and allegory is not something I would ever advocate.
I'll defend "Let that Be Your Last Battlefield." Maybe it's because I saw it as a child, but it really made clear how stupid racism and xenophobia is to me as a child.
You watch the episode and hear this idiot say how the other guy is obviously awful because he's black on the wrong side, realize how stupid that is, and then as a kid you realize how stupid and arbitrary every other distinction to make some person or group of persons an "other" is too when you get down to it. It's just bigotry with some extra steps of sophistry.
The episode is not subtle, but some anvils need to be dropped.
The point of allegory isn't just to hide the issue. It also exists to get people to look at a social issue from a different perspective.It's about getting you to think were a more direct means is more likely trying to get you to feel something for the character in question. If you can get people to do both then your really doing a good job.
Either way your storytelling has to still be subtle or authentic in some way. People need to see some truth in what the characters are saying or going through. You don't get that with on the nose speeches and straw man arguments. Their is a reason why any arguments on a show like "Supergirl" you couldn't take seriously. Yet something like "The Handmaid's Tale" feels real and like it is being honest with it's viewers.
Either way your storytelling has to still be subtle or authentic in some way. People need to see some truth in what the characters are saying or going through. You don't get that with on the nose speeches and straw man arguments. Their is a reason why any arguments on a show like "Supergirl" you couldn't take seriously. Yet something like "The Handmaid's Tale" feels real and like it is being honest with it's viewers.
Spock is my all time favorite Trek character, after Pike, at least with Nimoy and Quinto's presentations. However, regardless of my views on any sort of allegory, the idea that some populations need to be couched in allegory is kind of strange to me nowadays.
I agree, which is why I'm less fussed about less allegory. I long hold the opinion that Trek did well to say that life is hard and humanity will struggle but it will get better and then showed us that better, not allegorizing our problems.
For a supposed "think person's show" Star Trek sometimes feels the need to baby its audiences quite a bit.
I think is less about populations. The world of Star Trek is completely different than our present day. I'm kind of curious as to how people want non-allegory Trek to even look like. Also I might be wrong but I think people might be confusing the idea of representation with allegory. Which are two different things.
So you get things were TNG has a black male series regular. This would be representation but when they did a story about racism you had Data a android facing it from a human in "Redemption part 2." Are people saying it should have been Geordi not get respect from the other Starfeet officer because he didn't feel black people make good captains? If so how does that even make sense in the context of Trek?
So you get things were TNG has a black male series regular. This would be representation but when they did a story about racism you had Data a android facing it from a human in "Redemption part 2." Are people saying it should have been Geordi not get respect from the other Starfeet officer because he didn't feel black people make good captains? If so how does that even make sense in the context of Trek?
- Status
Similar threads
